What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245324 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5245324?

Compensation: Excess water charges d…: $616.41 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11959407-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245324 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5245324?

Compensation: Excess water charges d…: $616.41 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11959407-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245324 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245324 — net $643.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Excess water charges due to leak	$616.41	Excess water charges due to leak
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$643.41
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$643.41

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245324 — net $643.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Excess water charges due to leak	$616.41	Excess water charges due to leak
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$643.41
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$643.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $643.41 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
By consent, the landlord will promptly arrange for a contractor to assess the heat pump to ensure that it is operating correctly.
The tenants’ application for work orders is withdrawn.
The tenants’ application for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged non-compliance/non-disclosure of the Healthy Homes Standards requirements is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two tenants attended as did the landlords.
The tenancy is a current tenancy that started on 23 February 2025. Before that there were two fixed term tenancies with some of the current tenants and other tenants.
I explained to the tenants that the application before the Tribunal today could only address the current tenancy, with the named tenants as the applicants.
The tenants have applied for work orders; compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and the disclosure requirements; and compensation in the form of reimbursement for excess water charges due to a water leak. Work orders
The tenants withdrew their application for work orders. The work they listed in their application has been done. They said they wanted the heat pump to be professionally serviced because they believe it is not operating correctly. The landlord agreed to have a contractor assess, and if necessary, service the heat pump. I have made that order by consent.
Because the order for the heat pump is made by consent, I have not made any consequential money order for non-compliance. The Tribunal expects that the landlord will arrange for the heat pump to be serviced promptly and the landlord undertook to do so. HHS issues
The tenants withdrew their application for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged non-compliance with the HHS and the non-disclosure of the HHS statement.
The landlord completed the HHS compliance statement in the standard form tenancy agreement. Exemptions applied to some of the standards due to the construction of the premises. The tenants said they did not receive a copy of the tenancy agreement initially, but they have since received it. Excess water charges
The tenants gave evidence that there was a leak at the premises for about 10 months. During that time, they say they received high water rates bills. The period in question spans different tenancies. As I explained, the application before the Tribunal concerns the current tenancy and the current tenants. I cannot address a previous tenancy, since ended, when there were other tenants who are not the applicants.
The tenants provided a calculation based on a ‘best estimate’ approach. They seek compensation of $1,296.35 which is what they believe approximates the excess water charges they have had to pay.
However, the leak was only confirmed on 3 March 2025 and was repaired within about a week. Probably it was present for longer. But the period in question on this application dates from the start of this tenancy, not before.
The landlord made an offer of $616.41 which they explained was a pragmatic solution; it was the arrears amount of water rates that once paid would have cleared the account. They said the amount was well in excess of the tenant’s loss based on their calculations including advice from the local authority, which considered the leak was not significant and which offered a leak allowance of $32.15.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
Here, there was no breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. They acted on the tenants’ concerns about a water leak. They were not responsible for the leak itself.
So, the Tribunal must take a cautious approach in the absence of a breach by the landlord. That said, it is unfair for the tenants to incur a loss when they too were not responsible for what happened. Utility charges must be based on usage.
Given the limited time the leak was present for this tenancy and the fact that it was not considered by WaterCare to be a significant leak, the landlord’s offer of compensation was generous. Water use has many variables especially when there are several tenants in a tenancy. The landlords produced an email in evidence that shows concerns about the spike in water use after two previous tenants moved in for example. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
The Tribunal cannot award compensation based on a ‘best guess’ estimate. Calculating the exact amount of excess water charges resulting from a leak is notoriously difficult.
In this case, the most favourable outcome for the tenants is for the Tribunal to award compensation based on the landlord’s offer of $616.41. They have not proved a claim for excess water use directly due to the leak during their tenancy for an amount higher than that. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $643.41 comprising compensation for excess water charges and the filing fee.
The applications for work orders and for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the HHS and disclosure requirements are withdrawn.
By consent, the landlord will promptly have the heat pump assessed to ensure it is operating correctly. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. Each party has succeeded on the application, the tenants on the applications that were not withdrawn, and the landlord in their defence. Further, these orders could have been made had the parties attended mediation which they seemed to have been willing to do. Had they, the agreements reached would have been confidential.
There is no public interest that would outweigh suppression orders in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245324 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245324 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions